Talk:Poiesis

2007-02-8 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 22:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me where Heidegger said what he said on poiesis according to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.17.59 (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Heidegger reference is to page 10 of his essay, "The Question Concerning Technology" (QCT and Other Essays, trans. William Lovitt, 1977, Garland). Silverquick (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This page needs work. I have a Masters in political theory and sometimes read philosophy for a hobby and the whole page is incomprehensible to me. I have no idea what Poiesis means after reading this. 193.36.20.132 (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. This page is terrible. It's filled with meaningless gibberish, like "an action that transforms and continues the world" and "poïetic work reconciles thought with matter and time". I have no idea what, if anything, those statements are supposed to mean. This page should be rewritten by someone who knows how to use language to clearly communicate ideas. Mnudelman (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comments: this page is largely unintelligible. Not only that, but is poiesis even a word? Two of the most reputable online English Dictionaries (dictionary.com and m-w.com) indicate that it is only used to form compound words and not itself a word. If people want to keep this entry, then fine, but I think that there should at least be a note indicating that its status as an English word is not certain. 74.71.76.34 (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the comments claiming that the entry is meaningless and hard to understand. I think it's very meaningful and it does give me an idea of what might be meant by poiesis. Precisely the phrases singled out by Mnudelman above for me seem to carry significance. But I'm used to reading Heidegger texts and suspect that for those who are not, this text may seem inaccessible.

This makes me wonder to what degree philosophy can even be documented in such a thing as an encyclopaedia from an "objective" standpoint. (If you assume that it can be, you've already taken an implicit philosophical stance)

I wonder if this entry was implicitly written from a specifically Heidegger-esque perspective? If so, perhaps it might be incorporated into another entry on Heidegger terminology or Heideggerean thought. Alternatively, additional perspectives on poiesis might be added here. Maybe the source of people's frustration is that the writer's perspective has not been stated. Jtnystrom (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Two things. "Poiesis" is in Blackwell 2004. It's regularly discussed in college classes on Nicomachean Ethics. In other words, it stretches beyond Heidegger and, though specialized and a term of art, is a bit more than an italicized Greek word in English. Second thing is that I moved/subordinated some [autopoietical ;) ] graffiti on what its author Nikolic calls "practopoiesis" from graf 3 of this article to the Adaptive systems article, which already redirected from it. So if someone is going to clean this article up, let's keep it elemental. Zelchenko (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggest footnote on reference to technomorphic and biomorphic

An excellent reference I discovered on this is from Interfacing Science, Literature, and the Humanities, Paoli Spinozzi/Alessandro Zironi (eds), Origins as a Paradigm in the Sciences and in the Humanities, p. 199 ABruck1821 (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)